Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 12 Nov 2013 (Tuesday) 16:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7D mark II

 
ptcanon3ti
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,385 posts
Gallery: 440 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 6458
Joined Sep 2012
Location: NJ
     
Jan 29, 2014 16:23 |  #181

gjl711 wrote in post #16647970 (external link)
You use a very myopic definition of photographer. One could also say, if you used a digital camera with auto focus and auto exposure, you are not a real photographer or if you didn't coat your own glass plate with silver halide and expose it to mercury vapor, you are not a real photographer. By your definition, every sports, nature, event, paparazzi, wedding photographers are already not photographers because they current use rapid fire to get the shot. For me it's just a new tool in the tool chest. If it helps me get the image I'm looking for, I'm all for it. A photographer to me is anyone who captures an image whether it be still, video, cell phone, or a frame from a stream of frames.

That's absolutely NOT correct in anyway shape or form. I NEVER said that using the tech available is a bad thing. But lets not confuse photography with video editing.

You are entitled to your opinion as am I. But video and Photography are two different things.


Paul
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/petshots/ (external link)
Body - Nikon D750
Lenses - Nikon 20 f1.8 / Nikon 16-35 f4 / Sigma 105 OS Macro / Sigma 24-105 f4 Art / Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC / Sigma 150-600 "S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,379 posts
Likes: 2365
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jan 29, 2014 16:39 |  #182

I think you hung up on the whole video thing. What if it were just called 30fps? Your not editing a vieo but taking a frame from a rapid fire sequence that just happens to be at the same frame rate as video.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fligi7
Senior Member
966 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jan 29, 2014 16:59 |  #183

Video is not just a long sustained burst of shots in any form as there is no current mainstream camera that fires that fast. Further, by definition, burst infers a sudden change, and thus not a constant, sustained item, unlike video which is a sustained capture. So, let's clearly delineate that first and foremost.

Video is video and still photography is still photography. The intent of video is to capture an extended, uninterrupted period of time (which inherently contains a successive series of moments) in which things are happening as the output. The intent of still photography is to capture a singular moment in time as the output. Burst is an assistance mechanism (i.e. a crutch, if you will), of which is not part of normal operation and only depended upon temporarily to catch other singular moments (thus, the reason a separate buffer had to be created to account for this temporary assistance mechanism).

That said, would you have respect for a photographer then that just fired at this "30fps" (essentially equal to just holding the button down and pointing it at something) in hopes of catching a few stills from it after the fact? Or, would you have respect for a photographer who spent the time learning the environment (or events, in the case of sports) and timed each of his shots (to include some burst shots, mind you, of which are not video) to capture certain moments known to convey the picture of what was happening? Which person would be appearing to hold true to the intent and value of capturing photographs?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EtherealZee
Senior Member
Avatar
364 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Sydney, Aus
     
Jan 29, 2014 17:08 |  #184

gjl711 wrote in post #16648045 (external link)
I think you hung up on the whole video thing. What if it were just called 30fps? Your not editing a vieo but taking a frame from a rapid fire sequence that just happens to be at the same frame rate as video.

...Which is taken at 2mp, not 18mp, and also has a thick AA filter stick on to the sensor to ensure the those 30fps shots look ok when played at 30fps 1080P, but degrades the 18mp still image quality.

Z...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,379 posts
Likes: 2365
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jan 29, 2014 17:22 |  #185

EtherealZee wrote in post #16648104 (external link)
...Which is taken at 2mp, not 18mp, and also has a thick AA filter stick on to the sensor to ensure the those 30fps shots look ok when played at 30fps 1080P, but degrades the 18mp still image quality.

Z...

Yes.. Today... but with 4k capable cameras already here and 8k right around the corner you're looking at an 8mp image for 4k and a 32mp image for 8k.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mileslong24
Senior Member
508 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jun 2011
     
Jan 29, 2014 17:23 as a reply to  @ EtherealZee's post |  #186

Honestly all I want is better ISO handling, dual memory, AF at F8, and weather sealing. I would be content with those additions.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fligi7
Senior Member
966 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jan 29, 2014 17:28 |  #187

Add improved AF accuracy and I'm right there with you, miles.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EtherealZee
Senior Member
Avatar
364 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Sydney, Aus
     
Jan 29, 2014 17:51 |  #188

gjl711 wrote in post #16648136 (external link)
Yes.. Today... but with 4k capable cameras already here and 8k right around the corner you're looking at an 8mp image for 4k and a 32mp image for 8k.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you. - I am sure there will come a time when stills and video sensor tech will be on par, and processing and storage will easily handle either (and both) easily, so taking video footage will be a viable option (and, let's face it, a good eye for composition is a good eye for composition, regardless of video or stills - so a well composed still from a video, is potentially a well composed photo in every sense). Thing is, that time is not yet here, so, for now, we still see a focus on one hampering the other. which is where my frustration is.

I think this is where Canon may actually end up being the darling of the imaging world again, in the mid term future, anyway. I can imagine a 1DXIII with 8k 24/30/48/60/96fps video, ISO-Superduper, 1/8000 flash sync, focus peaking on an optical viewfinder, in built IS that works in conjunction with the IS-lenses to give even more IS (I'm clearly making a lot of this up.) blah blah blah...

Though, for now, that day is not today. And for now, I think the compromise is too heavy in favour of video.

Z...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Evan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,327 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Oregon
     
Jan 29, 2014 19:08 |  #189

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #16648008 (external link)
idk...I think the true pro photographers of the world have mastered their equipment and have maximized capturing the moment amazingly well.

Look at the published works that have been around for decades. Sports Illustrated as an example. The REAL photographers of the world have been providing us - you, me, and the rest of the sporting world, with some of the most breath taking sports stills ever recorded. How? Because they have Experience. Skill. Talent. An eye. The sense that tells them where to be to get the shot. Because the have mastered their equipment and all other variables to get the shot.

Heck - even I can get reasonable actions shots of Eagles fishing with my humble little 7D.

True photography is so much more than simply pressing a record button then sifting thru the vid to find a frame that works. I think extracting frames from a vid is cheapening the art of "photography". It's the dumbing down of photography. But that's just me I'm sure.

Photography is recording light and capturing a moment. The same goes for video, it is photography as well. Why would the method of capture degrade the message behind an image? Photography isn't about how you took the image, it is about how you decided to deliver your message. Professional photographers take images for a living. They consider their cameras as tools, why would they turn down a tool that made their job easier? Sports photographers are human, they miss shots. I think you would be hard pressed to find a pro shooter who turned down advanced tech because they felt like it was cheating.

Are the authors of the 1700s who used a feather to write, better at story telling than a modern day author who uses a Mac? Of course not. Their mediums may have changed, but the quill is no better at portraying an author's message than the keys on a Mac. The Mac may make it faster to write, but the delivery, grammar, and final message still rely on the author's ideas about how they want to portray the essay.

Of course, the romantic will always prefer past methods. And technology will always be advancing forward. Is the idea of a shutter clicking more romantic than that of a still being pulled from a computer screen? Sure it is. But because technology is always advancing, there will come a time when today's tech will become the romantic ideas of the past.


--
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fligi7
Senior Member
966 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jan 29, 2014 22:35 |  #190

IMHO, this is very simple. There are videos and there are photographs. It's not just the method of capture that differs between the two, it's also the intent and the output. All of these 3 things differ between a videographer and a photographer. Either you're taking a photograph, hence being a PHOTOGRAPHer or taking a video, hence being a VIDEOgrapher. The answer is literally within a subset of the word. Sure, one can be the other, or you may do both, or you may be one but acting as the other, etc. etc. but in no way is one inherently the other simply because some strategies and actions overlap.

I am not also a videographer simply because I capture a fraction of what makes up a video and they both capture light and require good composition and technique. Pages of well-written books do the same thing and they are not videographers nor photographers.

Yes, I may have stretched that last part a bit, although factually correct.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,379 posts
Likes: 2365
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jan 29, 2014 22:48 |  #191

But, what if your intent is to capture a single frame from the onset but you uses a device that can capture frames in a stream (video) What would you classify your self as? A photographer because you output will be a single frame or a videographer because you used a device capable of capturing multiple frames in succession?


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fligi7
Senior Member
966 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jan 29, 2014 22:56 |  #192

If my intent is to capture a single frame and I'm using a video camera, I would consider myself as someone using the wrong tool for the type of job I'm trying to do.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Evan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,327 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Oregon
     
Jan 30, 2014 01:41 |  #193

Fligi7 wrote in post #16648882 (external link)
If my intent is to capture a single frame and I'm using a video camera, I would consider myself as someone using the wrong tool for the type of job I'm trying to do.

Why not capture both at the same time? You should look at the stills that can be pulled from 1D C footage before writing off this method of photography. My guess is that within the next 10 years we will see dslrs at the consumer level that have the video capabilities of the 1D C. You yourself might be using something like this in the future.
----
In broad terms, I find it amazing how little photographers have been willing to adapt with new tech. And the attachment we have had towards tradition. The 1D C was a huge milestone in still image capture. I think we will look back at its release as the turning point in dslr cameras. Yes, we ask for new sensors that are better than the previous generations, but we haven't asked for easier, more reliable methods than limiting our output to our reaction times. Many times I have had missed a moment where I was not fast enough pressing the shutter, even when I was looking through the lens at the subject. That moment was there, I new it was coming, but I still could not capture it in time. If I had been filming and was able to pull that frame from the footage, boy, I would be a happy camper.

In the end this comes back to what photography is, a method of communication. I don't care what tools someone uses to achieve an award winning photo. Just that it communicates the idea the are trying to broadcast. But if there is a technology that makes it easier for me to demonstrate what I am trying to tell people, hell, I'm going to use it. Tradition be damned.


--
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,379 posts
Likes: 2365
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jan 30, 2014 06:05 |  #194

Evan wrote in post #16649133 (external link)
Why not capture both at the same time? You should look at the stills that can be pulled from 1D C footage before writing off this method of photography. My guess is that within the next 10 years we will see dslrs at the consumer level that have the video capabilities of the 1D C. You yourself might be using something like this in the future. ...

It's not 10 years away, it's already here now. There are still technical issues but there are several 4k capable cameras that you can get at reasonable prices.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ptcanon3ti
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,385 posts
Gallery: 440 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 6458
Joined Sep 2012
Location: NJ
     
Jan 30, 2014 06:24 |  #195

Fligi7 wrote in post #16648833 (external link)
IMHO, this is very simple. There are videos and there are photographs. It's not just the method of capture that differs between the two, it's also the intent and the output. All of these 3 things differ between a videographer and a photographer. Either you're taking a photograph, hence being a PHOTOGRAPHer or taking a video, hence being a VIDEOgrapher. The answer is literally within a subset of the word. Sure, one can be the other, or you may do both, or you may be one but acting as the other, etc. etc. but in no way is one inherently the other simply because some strategies and actions overlap.

I am not also a videographer simply because I capture a fraction of what makes up a video and they both capture light and require good composition and technique. Pages of well-written books do the same thing and they are not videographers nor photographers.

Yes, I may have stretched that last part a bit, although factually correct.

Well said.


Paul
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/petshots/ (external link)
Body - Nikon D750
Lenses - Nikon 20 f1.8 / Nikon 16-35 f4 / Sigma 105 OS Macro / Sigma 24-105 f4 Art / Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC / Sigma 150-600 "S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

37,500 views & 0 likes for this thread
7D mark II
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Bob Wille
1214 guests, 314 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.